This afternoon running errands the 1967 recording Snoopy vs the Red Baron by the Royal Guardsmen came on the pod.  The refrain contains the line "Eighty men died tryin' to end that spree of the bloody Red Baron of Germany."

No, they didn't.  First, what constitues a "spree?"  The first who died was not trying to end a spree as tRB had killed no-one.  Same might be said for the second.  Perhaps the third.  Then there's the fact that somewhere north of 20% of the victims of tRB were NOT on missions to shoot him down.  They were on bombing, strafing or photo-recon missions.  Soe eighty men did NOT die trying to end that spree.

Just sayin.'

THIS is why my classes are interesting but I don't get invited to cocktail parties.

“Democrats Defend Killing of Viable Fetuses to Appease Vocal Base”

But of course, we are not surprised to see “G.O.P. Pushes New Abortion Limits to Appease Vocal Base.”

It’s good to know there some constants in the universe that we can rely upon.

La.’s First Black Republican Legislator Since Reconstruction Explains Why He Switched

I'm also a bit preoccupied with the question of why people (left and right) who preach tolerance are so ... well ... intolerant?  As in" Oh, I tolerate with peole who don't agree with me 100% .... but after about 90% I'll put my foot down and call the the hateful [insert epithet here] that they are.

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

Ayn Rand

it’s been truly fascinating watching liberal media members attack National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden.

On CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday, host Bob Schieffer used his mid-program commentary section to lambaste Snowden saying “he is no hero” and instead is “just a narcissistic young man who has decided he is smarter than the rest of us”

Remind you of anyone else?

Pathological Altruism.

I get between 150 and 300 news items a day.  Some are mere headlines that take seconds.  Some are lengthy articles that I download to my Nook so that I might give them appropriate attention at a later date.  And alot of them get tagged for subsequent posting.  Then I find that I have multiple articles or "takes" on the same issue and do "roundup" posts.  Sometimes when I'm reviewing those old posts I find that the article just doesn'r resonate 5-7 days laters and so I delete it (like this one.)  And I'm often surprised when an article gets more attention than I thought it would.

Hence Pathological Altruism.  I teach the concept of Altruism in my Ethics courses.  Most textbooks tend to pair it (unfavorably) with egoism.  And so it was with great interest that this came into my ken.

Dr. Reynolds got it started by pointing me to JAMES TARANTO: Pathological Altruism: A simple concept that could revolutionize scientific and social thought. Taranto is commenting on Barbara Oakley’s work, and observes:

Pathological altruism is at the root of the liberal left’s crisis of authority, which we discussed in our May 20 column. The left derives its sense of moral authority from the supposition that its intentions are altruistic and its opponents’ are selfish. That sense of moral superiority makes it easy to justify immoral behavior, like slandering critics of President Obama as racist–or using the power of the Internal Revenue Service to suppress them. It seems entirely plausible that the Internal Revenue Service officials who targeted and harassed conservative groups thought they were doing their patriotic duty. If so, what a perfect example of pathological altruism.

Oakley concludes by noting that “during the twentieth century, tens of millions [of] individuals were killed under despotic regimes that rose to power through appeals to altruism.” An understanding that altruism can produce great evil as well as good is crucial to the defense of human freedom and dignity.

Altruism can be a tool for manipulators, just like any other human trait. Here’s video of Oakley talking about this.

Go read and watch.  Some VERY good stuff here.

Each wing has it's lead female editorialist.  The Left has Mo Do (Maureen Dowd) who has been writing the same column in a differetn order for the last ten years.  The right has Peggy Noonan who isn't as prolific or as consistant.  IMHO those are good things.  But last week she missed the boat. 

She wrote Privacy Isn’t All We’re Losing: The surveillance state threatens Americans’ love of country. Under Obama, it’s become less lovable. I suspect this isn’t entirely an accident. “Trust in government, historically, ebbs and flows, and currently, because of the Internal Revenue Service, the Justice Department, Benghazi, etc.—and the growing evidence that the executive agencies have been reduced to mere political tools—is at an ebb that may not be fully reversible anytime soon. It is a great irony, and history will marvel at it, that the president most committed to expanding the centrality, power, prerogatives and controls of the federal government is also the president who, through lack of care, arrogance, and an absence of any sense of prudential political boundaries, has done the most in our time to damage trust in government.”

Further thoughts here.

I love my country.  I am a Citizen of the United States and damend proud of that fact.  But I am acutely aware that there is a HUGE difference between my country and my government.  Now you may say this is a small thing.   I don't think so.  The government is that monolith that has congealed over time and metasticized into the thing to which Ms. Noonan alludes.  My COUNTRY is an amalgam of people and things and events and potentals that, while currently an afterthought to many globally, once, and wil again, lead the world.  It's my Celtic ancestors who came to escape an unjust legal system ony to be have thie lives threatened because of their national origin and religeion.  It's the first wave of Germans who came to escape the waves of war after war that ravaged West-Central Europe throughout the 19th Century.  It's the descendants of slaves who are now brain surgeons.  It's Nathan's hot dogs, crawfish etufee and sourgough bread.  Hell, it's even the Dallas Cowboys!  

But it is most definately NOT the rotting remnant of the shining city on a hill that is Washington DC and it's environs.

Here's ThinkProgress with another silly headline:

Rubio’s English-Only Requirement Could Prevent Over Four Million From Becoming New Americans.

Which is a little misleading because at no point does the author acknowledge that the law already requires one to pass both an English language test and a civics examination in order to gain citizenship. As the USCIS explains on its website:

During your naturalization interview, a USCIS Officer will ask you questions about your application and background. You will also take an English and civics test unless you qualify for an exemption or waiver. The English test has three components: reading, writing, and speaking. The civics test covers important U.S. history and government topics.

This one hits home because I'm currently tutoring TWO young ladies who are preparing for the  exam.

I'm just workin' through stuff here.

Assume your interlocuter is a supporter of politician A.

You ask: "Do you approve of (morally reprehensible activity)?"

Response will likely be "Of COURSE not."  Answers of "yes" tend to take discussions in completely different directions which are not withi the cope of this post.

Followup question: Do you acknowledge that (Organization/NGO) supports (morally reprehensible conduct)?

This is where is starts to get weird.  If you've done your research, "yes" should be the only response.  "No" either means your interlocutor isn't paying attention or is maintaining willful ignorance.  Same with "I don't know."  Regardless you now have to educate your interlocutor.  For giggles lets assume you convince them and we now have a "yes" answer.  

Third question:  How does that make you feel about your unabashed support for Politician A who supports (Organization that supports morally reprehensible conduct) as opposed to (organizations who DON'T support morally reprehensible conduct)?

Response: "You're just a racist!" (alternate answer: "Bush did it too!" even if he didn't.)

Not a very productive line of questioning. I've been experimineting with an alternate order.

1.    Start with the THIRD question: How do you feel about Politician A's support for  (Organization that supports morally reprehensible conduct) as opposed to (organizations who DON'T support morally reprehensible conduct)?  This will bring about something resembling a cogent answer and flatters your interlocutor into thinking you really want their well-reasoned opinion regarding a news-worthy issue.

2.  THEN jump to the first question.  Then the second.  Then come bac to the third.  You've already foreclosed the "racist/Bush" answers.

The PROBLEM with the above is that you can only use it about once every three to six months on most people.  They'll see you coming, recognize the formulation an only converse about boring banal topics.

I have some more thoughts here.  Maybe tomorrow, maybe later today.

OBAMA’S ORWELLIAN LEGACY:

The real effect of the NSA stories is to cement a narrative about Obama that will likely become part of his legacy: the liberal senator and constitutional law professor who, like the pigs in “Animal Farm,” metamorphosed into what he had so notoriously opposed. Guantanamo remains open. Drones still rain down on Pakistan, Yemen, and anywhere else the president sees fit. Leaks are prosecuted vigorously and reporters are investigated to uncover their sources. And now, the president is affirming the surveillance practices he once mused could be unconstitutional. In light of these actions alone, it seems that Barack Obama has learned that George W. Bush got a lot of things right.

How’s that hopey-changey stuff workin’ out for ya?